svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet

[Attila Nagy]

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org>:
>
>   
>> I think Julian's analysis, that this is more of an inet option than a
>> socket-layer option, seems more appropriate to me, the benefits of
>> portability in adopting the API used by OpenBSD/BSDI/etc seem more
>> compelling.  We should make sure that, if we move to the socket option used
>> on those systems, we block setting it on non-supporting protocols, or
>> confusion will result.  In particular, Adrian's change only modified IPv4,
>> not IPv6, so until it's implemented on IPv6 it shouldn't be possible to set
>> the option.
>>     
>
> I'm happy to (eventually) also implement the BSDI API once I actually
> spend time looking at what the difference in behaviours are. If we're
> lucky, the only difference is where the socket option hooks in and the
> actual network behaviour is the same.
>
> (Meanwhile, I think I have to go off and implement this particular
> behaviour in Squid, and see if the OpenBSD support indeed does
> function as advertised.)
>   
BTW, I'm eagerly waiting for somebody to implement this transparency 
into nginx, which can act as a reverse proxy with built-in perl logic. :)
That way FreeBSD could be used as a highly flexible transparent reverse 
HTTP proxy.

Do you know anything else which can do that now with an easy API 
(accessible from high level languages like perl or python)?